Legal Defenses And Excuses For Criminal Responsibility

“(3) There is no other reasonable alternative, other than committing the crime, to avoid the threat of harm”. See State v. Robinson, 294 S.C. 120, 121-122, 363 S.E.2d 104, 104 (1987) (. . . discussing circumstances under which criminal act could be excused).

One point of view holds that the social responsibility perspective believes that individuals are fundamentally responsible for their own behavior and that they choose crime over other, more law-abiding courses of action (Schmalleger, F., 2015, p. 15). This perspective places the cause of crime directly on the individual and presumes that the individual is exercising their free will. The social responsibility perspective on crime also relies on theories about individual faults leading to criminal behavior, and that in terms of the criminal, victim, and justice system individuals play a role within the social aspect of crime. These theories suggest criminals are different from noncriminals for biological or psychological reasons, the difference between this perspective and the social

When a defendant is convicted of a crime, arrested, and stand trial there are multiple ways that they can defend themselves. The criminal justice system has a variety of types of criminal defenses that one should be familiar with, if ever in the position of being charged with an offense. Within this paper, I will be talking about seven different types of criminal defenses, starting with: insanity, automatism, duress, self defense, intoxication, necessity/ lesser harm, and mistake of fact.

The five principles of a crime are the guilty act or actus reus, the guilty intent or mens rea, the relationship between guilty act and guilty intent, the attendant circumstances and the results. The guilty act or actus reus is the inception of a crime, “this criminal liability occurs only after a voluntary act that results in criminal harm” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). This protects Americans from being punished for bad thoughts. The guilty intent or mens rea establishes and distinguishes between the mental state required in committing a crime. This insures that Americans are not prosecuted for innocently causing harm to another. The relationship and union between the guilty act and the guilty intent further distinguishes an act from being

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

Another explanation for the absence in moral reasoning in the criminal law is that there is no need for any deep moral debate concerning the right or wrong of

These crimes have been deemed particularly dangerous to society because they compromise the health, well being, privacy and protection of the people of any given jurisdiction. When these crimes are committed or a person or group is accused of such acts, legal representation is the next logical step to preserve the institution of justice, protect innocent parties, and prevent the innocent among the accused from prosecution. This is why it is important to find the right lawyer. Criminal defense in the form of an experienced attorney is critical to aligning evidence, witnesses, and countering the prosecutions arguments for the sake of their client's defense, case dismissal, acquittal, lessened sentencing or rehabilitation.

This paper is being submitted August 11, 2013 for Professor Sheryl Prichard’s Criminal Law and Procedure course at Devry University by Jonah Colombo.

In the light of extreme juvenile cases, the juvenile system has conceded age exceptions, by allowing juveniles that commit heinous crimes to be divided into a system where they aren’t tried as an adult based on the fact that they’re only kids. If the belief that they are only kids, shouldn’t they learn that when their kids, the actions they commit have consequences. Although it’s understandable if the juvenile system argues, that for many kids, their parents play a huge part on their developments, but in the case that there is parental neglect, and they don’t know the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn’t be tried as an adult, largely based on the fact that they don’t have parents to teach them values, and the result is that their brains are incapable of knowing the capacities of their actions. If this is the result, then the reasons to not tried them as an adult, is correct, but the reasons to

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

When a person is charged with a crime the type of defense that they choose could ultimately determine their fate. There are many different types of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this paper I will be taking a brief look at two different cases that have implored two different types of criminal defenses. I will look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to demonstrate defense. I will describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and I will also be describing the outcome of each case.

It is important to examine individual’s behavior during an investigation and to examine any claims of automatism. Automatism is when individual’s thoughts or intentions do not consciously perform the correct behavior or normal actions. Automatism also means that individuals may have committed a crime or did something involuntarily. There are many individuals who believe that automatism is a defense. However, some researchers believe that automatism is not a legal defense. There are cases of impairment and involuntary criminal acts, such as hypoglycemia while driving that warrant for the automatism defense. In addition, individual’s behavior before, during, and after a crime can determine the cause of crime. It is important within the criminal justice field to determine if these claims are true and so that they can be ruled out as a defense. According to Child and Reed (2014), “Having recognized that automatism plays an inculpatory role within the law, we have then analyzed this role and concluded that it is defective: prior fault automatism lacks the equivalent blameworthiness necessary to fairly substitute for even missing basic intent offence elements” (p. 185). The automatism defense and individual’s behavior can determine the cause of crime, but does not always give a legal defense in a case.

In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality